transnational education (tne) - opetushallitus...• vietnam is a strong tne market with significant...
TRANSCRIPT
Transnational Education (TNE)
Common models and opportunities for Finland
• Context
• Covid-19
• Motivations
• The ‘TNE equation’
• Case studies
• Balancing academic quality with commercial viability
• Leveraging the Finnish advantage
• Next steps and recommendations
Contents
TNE in Asia
Context
Context
What is TNE?
Definitions can be confusing and vary greatly throughout the world, making comparisons difficult.
Our preferred definition:
All types of higher education study programmes, or sets of courses of study, or educational services (including those of distance education) in which the learners are located in a country different from the one where the awarding institution is based.
OECD/UNESCO, 2014
• >50% of international students with UK HEIs studied part or all via TNE (2016, UUKi and British Council)
• 84% of UK Universities operate TNE programmes (UUKi, 2019)
• Asia accounts for over 50% of all TNE students for the UK (UUKi, 2019)
• UK TNE student numbers grew 13% 2014-2015 (BC, 2016)
• 666,000 students were taking part in UK TNE programmes in 2015 (BC, 2016)
• Mature markets (Hong Kong, Malaysia) stagnating, emerging markets (Myanmar, Sri Lanka) seeing >50% YoY growth (UUKi, 2019)
• 67% of TNE students are at the UG level (AusGov, 2016)
• High-profile models such as full branch campuses may be the more visible models, but account for only a small portion of global TNE operations
• There is a growing trend of empowerment of the local delivery partner
• Modes of delivery have become increasingly flexible, especially in the current Covid-19 climate
• There are many aspects to the TNE model: academic, content, commercial and partnership, and any given partnership has its own DNA
Context
3 of the top 9 TNE countries are in SE Asia, 6 of 9 in Asia
Top TNE host countries (JISC 2018)1. China 2. United Arab Emirates 3. Malaysia 4. Singapore 5. Qatar 6. South Korea7. Hong Kong 8. Mauritius 9. Vietnam
English-speaking countries lead the way in TNE export
Top TNE exporting countries (JISC 2018)1. UK
2. USA3. Australia4. France
5. Germany6. Netherlands
7. Russia
8. China9. Canada10. India
Growing interest in non-traditional exporters:- often to meet regional needs- focus subject strength
TNE in Asia
Covid-19
Covid-19
EAIE survey
Covid-19
“This post-mobility world goes beyond physical space, surpasses state borders and considers a broader global society and the responsibilities that we have. Our task at hand is to make a stronger case for TNE.” Jenny Lee, Professor at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona
“The coronavirus will accelerate trends that would have taken decades to unfold, such as blended learning, intra-regional mobility and TNE growth” Janet Ilieva, Education Insights
“Transnational education will bloom as coronavirus keeps international students away” Universities UK
“The global online degree market will double in value.” HolonIQ
Covid-19
Impact on TNE
- Expectation of significant impact in international intakes (mobility-dependent)
- Significant revenue hole for traditional destination universities
- Expedited ability in distance learning from all stakeholders
- Reluctance of students/parents to take risks, many ‘stay close to home’
- Key new element to destination choice – safety
Negative impact Positive impact
Student mobility destinationsDestinations with high % of international studentsCountries perceived to have handled Covid-19 badly (eg UK)
Local institutionsDistance and blended learning providers Transnational education offeringsCountries perceived to have handled Covid-19 well (egNZ)
TNE in Asia
Motivations
Motivation
Motivation Considerations
Reputation Success by association from choosing the right partner. Also, significant part of ranking success (critical in the international space).
Profile/Awareness Promotion focused on a locally-delivered programme in a specific market can far outweigh remote promotion. Many institutions fear negative impact on recruitment to main campus due to local offerings, however the reverse is usually true due to increased awareness.
Student throughput –general
For X+Y or preparation programmes, the main motivation can be delivering students to the home campus, which means the overseas element can be offered at break-even point.
Student throughput –specific
Targeted to specific majors, levels or demographics. Important however to resist the danger of using TNE to plug numbers in underperforming programmes –often the same reasons those programmes underperform in the home campus also apply overseas.
Revenue Should not be ignored as a valid motivation. Somewhat linked with student throughput but can be achieved without throughput to main campus.
TNE in Asia
The TNE ‘equation’
The TNE ‘equation’
Set Up Acting as Partnership
University to:
Financial Academic level
Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery mode
Ty
pe
sBranch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partner (:onward)Self-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeSplit by deliveryFully owned
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd partyConsortiumFully owned
ComprehensiveSpecific
F2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with touchpoint centresDistance Learning
Co
nsi
de
rati
on
s
Set up costsLocal regulatory approval
Brand power/risk as a standaloneBrand can be diminished in consortium but can be powerful tool for generating awareness for smaller countries and specific specialisms
Alignment with motivationPreparation or partnership?Relative strength of brands
Who collects the fees?
Regulatory frameworks Local approvals neededLink to motivationsCan be multiple
Strong link with financial viabilityStrong link to numbers and locationsScalabilityBrand risk
Brand riskConsistencyEase of operating
Linked to scale and attractiveness to market
Costs (student and institution)ScalabilityRegulatory acceptanceCustomer acceptance
F2F = Face-to-face
Pros and cons of key aspectsPros Cons
Set Up Full branch campus • High profile, prestigious • Not agile• Location limited• High cost
Joint-branded campus • Profile raising for both organisations if matched
• Complementary offering
• Aligning prestige of brands• Risk element by association
Programmes within existing institute
• Low cost• No legal entity to create/manage
• Often very low numbers• Exclusivity and competition within institution
Articulation only • Cost-effective – local market dynamics at play, less commercial pressure on overseas leg
• Associating name and brand with limited control • Difficult to forecast or ‘lock in’ students
Acting as Alone • High visibility of brand• Control
• Challenging for low-profile institutions to attract partners and student numbers
Consortium • High profile and credible• Ensures broad offering and strengths• Government support and backing
• Diluted impact for individual brands• Balancing multiple organisation objectives• Disproportionate recruitment/throughput
Partnership University • Credibility• Access to facilities and faculty • Local access eg MoE, workplace
• Risk of lacking commercial drive to ensure financial viability in terms of both recruitment and operating model
College • Often suited to pathway/preparation programmes
• Not seen as ‘peer’ of overseas university
A commercial partner • Can provide the commercial drive needed• Hungry for success• Often brings deep sales and marketing
expertise• Willingness to take on all commercial risk
• Perception of inappropriate partnership with profit making organisation
• Significant dilution of revenue
No partner • Complete control• No sharing of revenues
• High capital expenditure• Difficult to be fully atuned to local needs
Pros and cons of key aspectsPros Cons
Financial Fully owned • No dilution of profits • High risk exposure• High initial investment
Joint venture • Complementary organisations can play to strengths
• Aligned financial motivations
• Ensuring the right partner and alignment of motivations• Severance at end of period
Revenue share • Equal ‘skin in game’ after costs• Relatively simple to administer
• Apportioning and managing operational costs
Per capita fee • Transparent• Reflects value of services provided
• Imbalanced share of success
Split by delivery • Neat• Local price can reflect local costs
• Total cost may not reflect value• Differentiated pricing may increase student attrition mid
programme
Quality Control Flying faculty • High level of quality control• Closest to authentic ‘international’ experience
• Rarely financially viable unless at high volumes• Significant travel commitment and environmental impact• Not seen as significant differentiator if quality local staff are
available; value can be added through video lectures etc
Bespoke • High level of quality control• Can tailor to meet particular partnership needs
• Rarely financially viable unless at high volumes• Not scalable• Likely significant travel commitment and environmental
impact
SOP • Scalable• Efficient• Encourages further TNE rollouts• Possible ‘Brand Finland’ differentiator
• Relatively costly and time-consuming to set up• Strong planning required in early phases to ensure
sustainability and scalability
3rd party-managed • Access to specific expertise • Financial model can reduce investment need• Can be local and close to operations• Can have strong reporting mechanisms written
into contract to minimise risk
• Some dilution of revenue• Need to manage expectations of input into partner
processes• Brand risk of ‘delegation’ of key element
Articulation only • One off and paper-based programme recognition and outcome mapping exercise
• Loose link and easy to replicate
Pros and cons of key aspectsPros Cons
Content Overseas institution • Entirely suited to destination context• Maps well to onward study
• Challenge of compatibility and consistent learning outcomes
Local institution • Entirely tailored to local context• Maps well from pre-study
• Challenge of compatibility and consistent learning outcomes
Jointly-created • Collaborative• Tailored to combination of contexts
• Complex and time-consuming to create
Third party • Efficient• Written ready for partner delivery
• Cost implication• Alignment with academic elements of both parties
Subjects Comprehensive • Potential to achieve scale• Accurate recreation of overseas institution
• Can be difficult to achieve scale• Significant cost and risk exposure
Specific • Limited investment• Reduced risk• Fewer stakeholders
• Limited economy of scale• Market demand may shift away from programme
Delivery mode Face-to-Face one/multiple
• Traditional classroom environment • Full learner experience
• Difficult to scale• Limited geographies
Face-to-Face split • Cost-effective for students• Experience of two learning and living contexts
• Overseas element cost implication• Making the learning experience and outcomes
seamless
Distance learning • Scalable• Flexible
• Local country regulatory approval and recognition• Student/parent acceptance varies by market
Distance Learning with touchpoint centres
• Scalable and flexible• Offers elements of Distance Learning and
Blended Learning without full academic quality management implications
Key considerations- What is your risk tolerance in terms of academic quality?- What is your risk tolerance commercially?- Are your and your potential partner’s motivations compatible?
TNE in Asia
Case Studies
Case study: RMIT Vietnam
Set Up Acting as Partnership
University to:
Financial Academic level
Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery mode
Ty
pe
s
Branch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partner (:onward)Self-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeRoyaltySplit by delivery Fully-owned
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully-ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd partyConsortium
ComprehensiveSpecific
F2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with touchpoint centresDistance Learning
Australian university with a long-established and fully-owned campus in Ho Chi Minh City
Case study: RMIT Vietnam
Partners NAUnusually, RMIT were invited by the Vietnamese government to open a fully-overseas owned university. Buildings have been purchased directly.
Founded
Estimated student numbers
2000
9,000
University motivations Reputation – key driver. Prestige of being the first fully overseas institution operating in Vietnam, a key potential market at the time.Profile – presence in key strategic market has significantly increased market recognition. Revenue – probably not the initial key motivator, especially given the price point in 2000, however this will now be providing a significant contribution.Throughput – some X+Y programmes, and opportunity to transfer campuses, but not a major factor
Notes • The opportunity to set up a fully-owned overseas campus is rare in Asia, and is generally only by direct and targeted invitation of the government.
• Vietnam is a strong TNE market with significant potential. Overseas study is common and there is a growing trend for domestic students to attend international schools for K12 education in English and learning towards overseas school qualifications (AP, A Level, IB). Price point is a key element however in Vietnam, so revenue may not be a major motivator in the short term.
Success rating RMIT Vietnam has been a major success. First-mover advantage has been a significant factor and as yet there is no other significant managed campus in Vietnam on anywhere near the same scale. Increased profile in the Vietnam market has also cemented RMIT’s recruitment into Australia.
Success Effort
Case study: University of Nottingham, Ningbo
Set Up Acting as PartnershipUniversity to:
Financial Academic level
Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery modeT
yp
es
Branch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partnerSelf-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeRoyaltySplit by delivery Fully owned
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd party
Comprehensive
SpecificF2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with touchpoint centresDistance Learning
British university with its second campus outside the UK, a joint venture with a commercial group
Case study: University of Nottingham, Ningbo
Partners Wanli Education Group – Zhejiang-based commercial education provider with multiple proprietary brands
Founded
Estimated student numbers
2004
6,000
University motivations Reputation – likely the key driver. Nottingham has always been a forward-thinking university and was the first to open an overseas campus in Asia (Malaysia, 2000, also a JV with a local commercial partner)Profile – first mover with physical campus in China as the international (inc mobility) market was taking off. Ambitious but well-selected overseas ventures has kept Nottingham at the forefront of perception for international education in the UK.Revenue – probably not a key motivator but the success of the model would have provided significant revenue Throughput – healthy numbers, e.g. 2+2 undergraduate. Also a very popular destination for exchange, for Nottingham UK, Malaysia and other university students.
Notes • Partnering with commercial organisations, albeit carefully selected, was considered .• Location choices were also strategic, as key markets for international education. The selection of Ningbo was somewhat
opportune based on the partner however was also very strategic given the over-supply of education programmes in the more famous cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. Additionally, Ningbo, Zhejiang is excellently-located for the wealthy central-eastern seaboard.
Success rating Nottingham’s Ningbo campus was a shrewd and pioneering move and one which has brought significant positive impact in terms oflocal recruitment and profile, as well as the knock-on effect to the main campus in the UK. Electing to partner a commercial organisation was a brave decision at the time, but the decision has paid off.
Success Effort
Case study: Curtin University Singapore
Set Up Acting as Partnership
University to:
Financial Academic level
Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery modeT
yp
es
Branch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partner(:onward)Self-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeSplit by deliveryFully owned
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd partyConsortium
Comprehensive
SpecificF2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with Touchpoint CentresDistance Learning
An Australian university with a long-established campus, fully-managed by a commercial entity
Case study: Curtin University SingaporePartners Navitas (large, Private Equity-owned,
Australian pathway and managed campus provider) www.navitas.com
Malaysian commercial entity (minority)
Founded
Estimated student numbers
2010
1,200 full time per year(peak of 2,000 c.2015)
University motivations Profile – presence in key strategic market has significantly increased market recognition. Key strategic location also helped the lessattractive main campus location (WA) ‘punch above its weight’ in terms of inbound recruitment Revenue – has been steady and not insignificant, although not at peak. Partnering with a commercial organisation removed any significant commercial risk to the UniversityThroughput – some X+Y programmes inc 3 site MBA however this was not a main driver as it is a fully functioning managed branch campus
Notes • The University has a stated strategy of campuses around the Pacific. • They have clearly favoured the full managed campus option and work hard to give the same student experience in all campuses,
including look and feel, and access to opportunities.• All of their managed campuses (Singapore, Malaysia, Mauritius, UAE) have different local partners, and despite this they have
managed to achieve significant cooperation between them including sharing of sales opportunities and promotion under the One Curtin banner.
• Curtin Singapore recruits roughly 50:50 local and overseas students• Overseas students are largely regional• Curtin Singapore partners with the local MoE and MoH to offer certain Nursing courses to meet local needs, an area of
specialism for Curtin.
Success rating Soon after inception, the model became a strong success and numbers were significant. Leveraging a large group such as Navitas allows strong reach and impact in terms of overseas sales and marketing reach.As Singapore has matured and become a more expensive destination, and as competition has increased with higher-profile brands, success has waned albeit still achieving a significant number
Success Effort
Case study: NCUK (Northern Consortium)
Set Up Acting as Partnership
University to:
Financial Academic level Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery mode
Ty
pe
s
Branch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partner (:onward)Self-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeRoyaltySplit by delivery Fully owned
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd partyConsortium
Comprehensive
SpecificF2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with Touchpoint CentresDistance Learning
Not for profit consortium, owned by a group of British universities, offering franchised pathways
Case study: NCUK (Northern Consortium)
Partners Multiple local-delivery partners overseas – over 60 delivery centres in 25 countries. Delivery centres range from local high schools, private colleges and state universities.
Founded
Estimated student numbers
1987
5,000
University motivations Revenue – not a motivator for NCUK (although is for the owning-universities). Any surplus in the organisation is dispersed to charitable organisations.Throughput – the main driver. The universities’ motivation in establishing NCUK was to drive students onto their home campuses, and to partner in order to meet the needs of local markets and gain scale.
Notes • NCUK is a charitable organisation whose main objective is to provide throughput of students to the 10 owning universities, which represent a cross-section of institutions in the North of England, including 3 Russell Group institutions. Additionally, associate and articulating Universities allow NCUK programme graduates onward study routes at dozens of universities in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand.
• NCUK offer the X of X+Y programmes, with students benefitting from a wide range of universities for their Y programme. Key NCUK programmes including Foundation Year (year zero), International Year One, and Pre-Master’s.
Success rating NCUK has been a strong success in achieving the objectives of its owning universities – namely a strong throughput of well-prepared students with an increased profile for the member institutionsArguably NCUK has not met its full potential of scale and scope due to a risk-averse style and limited investment
Success Effort
Case study: Newcastle University, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Set Up Acting as PartnershipUniversity to:
Financial Academic level
Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery modeT
yp
es
Branch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partner (:onward)Self-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeRoyaltySplit by deliveryFully owned (lease of property)
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd partyConsortium
Comprehensive
SpecificF2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with touchpoint centresDistance Learning
British university with a small, fully-owned, single-faculty in Malaysia
Case study: Newcastle University, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
Partners EduCity Iskandar Sdn Bhd (EISB), owned by Khazanah Nasional (Malaysia’s state investment vehicle) and other state entities.
The campus is academically directly managed by Newcastle University with facilities and corporate service support from EISB.
Founded
Estimated student numbers
2011
700 (NB one faculty only)
University motivations Revenue – moderate to high motivator. The University has a particularly-marketable programme to the region (medical) and the local delivery opportunity has increased student recruitment in this key strength area for the University.Awareness – with the particular faculty offering, the University has been able to grow market awareness in the medical field, inevitably having positive impacts to recruitment both to the UK and locally.Throughput – unlike neighbouring University of Southampton’s campus, which focuses on Engineering and only offers year 0, 1 and 2 of the 4-year Degrees, the Newcastle programmes are designed to be fully completed within Malaysia.
Notes • The Newcastle offering comprises exclusively of medical and related subjects, trading on the university strength and clear market need.
• EISB was created to provide a new education city in the southern Malaysian state of Johor Bahru, within 30 minutes drive of Singapore. Education within EduCity is typically offered at 60% of the price for the equivalent programme in the home country. EduCity is currently home to 8 institutions including a British boarding school, three UK Universities, a Dutch maritime institute and two Singapore colleges.
• The flagship operator at EduCity, University of Reading, opted for a comprehensive offering and occupies a 3,000 student capacity building. This has been a financial disaster leading to a write down of $60m.
• The role of EISB was originally envisaged as a developer to develop the land, streets, infrastructure, and then sell or lease the land to overseas institutions. However as the development matured, their role has evolved to provide more services including management of the operations, marketing and student recruitment etc.
Success rating Newcastle University, Johor Bahru is a prime example of a focused opportunity, an aligned offering to local needs enjoying significant success.Market potential was clearly identified and capacity matched, reducing risk and resources.A very successful model.
Success Effort
Set Up Acting as PartnershipUniversity to:
Financial Academic level
Quality control
Content Subjects Delivery modeT
yp
es
Branch campusJoint-brand campusProgramme(s) within existing instituteArticulation only
AloneConsortium
UniversityCollegeCommercial partner (:onward)Self-managed
Joint ventureRevenue sharePer capita feeRoyaltySplit by delivery Fully owned
UG – single awardUG – joint awardPG TaughtPreparation
Flying facultyBespokeSOP3rd party management with supervisionJV-managedFully ownedArticulation only
Overseas institutionLocal institutionJointly-created3rd partyConsortium
ComprehensiveSpecific
F2F one locationF2F splitF2F multipleBlended LearningDistance Learning with touchpoint centresDistance Learning
Case study: University of Sussex with Mahidol University, ThailandInstitutional partnership offering dual degrees in bioscience
Case study: University of Sussex with Mahidol University, Thailand
Partners Direct relationship with the international cooperation division of Mahidol University
Founded
Estimated student numbers
TBC
50
University motivations Reputation – strong motivation for both parties (prestigious university in Asia, reputable western university)Throughput – moderate driver, although quality over quantity. Securing quality students into two years of UG tuition revenue.Revenue – not a significant motivator due to low price point of local programme.
Notes • Thailand is not a mature TNE market due in part to high quality local delivery. However in 2017 the MoE announced plans to encourage ‘high quality’ overseas institutions to open branch campuses on favourable (but broadly unspecified) terms. Degree subjects must be matched to Thailand’s ‘4.0 Policy’ focusing on high-value, technology driven sectors.
• Similar X+Y models exist with c.15 British University programmes and recently Carnegie Mellon have launched the first true joint campus in Thailand
Success rating A modest success for both partiesReputation enhancing for both institutions with clearly aligned and modest motivationsThe number of students is typical of a successful partnership of this kind and is well matched to the level of risk and investment on behalf of both institutions
Success Effort
TNE in Asia
Balancing academic quality with
commercial viability
Quality control management mechanisms versus cost
Ability to ensure quality
Co
st
Flying faculty
Robust SOP on local supervision
Relying on local partner
JV-managed
Recognition only
Desired range
Regular visits
Creating scalable quality control management
Commercial
• Commercial principles
• Commercial code of conduct
• Marketing and sales regulations
• Student management policies
Quality Control
• Quality assurance princples
• Academic code of conduct
• Roles and responsibilities framework
• Accreditation process
• Content
• Faculty
• Facilities
• Awards and Assessments policy
Academic Content
Designed for third-party delivery
• Syllabus
• Learning outcomes
• Detailed lesson plans
• Supporting resources
Key factors in commercial viability
Right market and location
• Mature versus emerging
• Supply versus demand
Right offering
• Detailed market-sizing research
• Aligning with local needs
Right partnership model and partner
• Matched to risk/reward perspective
• Alignment of motivations
Realistic business plan
• Linked to market-sizing
• Appropriate investment and expected returns
Right sales and marketing approach
• Driven (appropriately for education)
• Appropriate for local context
TNE in Asia
Leveraging the Finnish advantage
Leveraging the Finnish advantage
• Perception of mature and successful economy, technologically-advanced• High-achieving education system• Limited exposure to international education markets – no reputation damage and
not having high numbers to ‘defend’• Perception of Finnish education being ‘different’ to traditional Asian style
• Not known as a typical study destination• Traditional universities not offering Bachelor’s degrees taught in English• Perception versus reality of language of instruction• Limited exposure to international education markets – very little brand recognition
of individual institutions • Perception of Finnish education being ‘different’ to traditional Asian style
Leveraging the Finnish advantage
Focused offerings leveraging Finland’s core strengths:
• Innovation
• Advanced technologies
• Renewable energy
• Green economy
• Sustainability
• Education
Mapped to local strategic objectives and market demand
Aligned partners sharing similar visions and compatible motivations
Niche programme offerings in mature TNE markets
Broader offerings in emerging markets
Strongly consider Nordic Consortium for a ‘total greater than sum of parts’ approach
TNE in Asia
Next steps and recommendations
Next steps and recommendations
Groundwork
Audit of current partnerships
Capture equation and motivations
Prioritisation of markets by key criteria
Explore partnership development plans
Consider third party partnership
management
Scope a Finnish consortium approach
Mapping of key ‘Finnish advantage’
subjects to local/national government
Execution
Creation of robust but commercially-
viable quality control SOP
Proactive, targeted partner
development outreach
Willingness to transform or exit current
partnerships